In his account of the Northern Sporades, Pliny names the islands of Iresia, Solymnia, Eudemia, and Nea as lying off the Gulf of Salonica, but gives no clue as to the individual identity of each island.

‘Tiberium Neronem et Claudium Drusum priuignos imperatoriis nominibus auxit [sc. Augustus]’’, i.e. honoured them with salutations as ‘imperatores’’. So I took it in my commentary (Cambridge, 1972), supposing argument needless. I must now defend my view against R. Syme, Historia antiqua, Commentationes Louanienses in honorem W. Peremans (Louvain, 1977), p.239. Syme asserts ‘Avoiding a technical term, he [Tacitus] describes the stepsons of the Princeps as invested with imperatoriis nominibus (3.1). That is, a grant of imperium proconsular (after the campaigns of 11 B.C.).’’ He adds in a footnote ‘As emerges clearly from Dio 54.33.5 (Drusus), cf. 34.4 (Tiberius). The matter must be stated firmly, since both Koestermann and Goodyear are totally inadequate.’’ Let me make amends.

Mr. Reed has performed a distinct service by reminding us (CQ 26 (1976),309 ff.) of the odd statement by Guglielmo da Pastrengo that Tacitus was once the director of Titus' private library: if authentic, the information is too precious to be neglected. We cannot deny that Guglielmo may have had ancient sources now lost. When we know that a short epic, probably by Rabirius, one of the most admired poets of the Augustan age, disappeared after 1466, although it was protected by a false ascription to Virgil, it would be foolhardy to claim that any loss after 1350 was impossible. On the other hand, we all know that instant erudition was a speciality of many Medieval sciolists whom admirers of the Middle Ages now call ‘Humanists’’ and ‘scholars’’, e.g. Arnulf of Orleans, whose recondite learning enabled him to inform us that Lucan was called Annaeus because bees settled on the infant's lips, and that he was brought to Rome as a captive after Nero stormed Cordova.

Q. Veranius, the governor of Britain who died in office, assured Nero in his will that he would have subjugated Britain ‘si biennio proximo vixisset’’. Proximo is suspect; if he had lived two years longer they were bound to be the next two. Read si biennio provixisset. For the verb provivere, to live longer, see Ann. 6.25; for the confusion of proximo and pro, see Capelli, p.299; and cf. Iul. Cap., M. Aur. 27 ‘si anno uno superfuisset, provincias ex his fecisset’’.

These lines, which I cite according to Hill's forthcoming edition, have caused scholars some difficulty of interpretation. Trabibus has generally been taken to refer to battering-rams and thus, for instance, we find in the Delphin edition as an interpretation of trabibusque … loco the words ‘et strepenti ariete loco extrudunt lapides firme constrictos’’. Certainly, if they drive stones from their place with a ram, it is the ram that is the best candidate for the epithet sonorus – a candidature every ω manuscript rejects, except two alleged by Barth. P, however, has et ariete, replacing the rather uninformative adjective artata and providing an explicit noun for sonoro to agree with; and P was followed by the early editors Lindenbrogius and Cruceus. ‘Infeliciter’’, says Barth. Infelicitously indeed: et is deleted by P in the first hand and would not scan; without et the sentence does not construct and the line still does not scan – for the word is ariěte (see Hill ad 2.492).

The manuscript B of Aulus Gellius, containing N.A. 9-12 and 13.5, and now split at potuit/admonendi 12.10.3 between Cod. Bern. 404 and Cod. Lugd.- Bat. B. P. L. 1925, is dated by Hosius (Teubner edn., I.xii) and Marshall (O.C.T. I.xvii) to 1173 on the strength of the subscript to an astronomical work immediately preceding Gellius in Cod. Bern. 404. This work is the ‘Liber Atphargan'i [sic] in scientia astrorum et radicibus motuum caelestium’’ translated by Johannes Hispalensis; the subscriptio, quoted in full by Hertz (.ed. max., Il.lxi), indicates the date as follows (I expand contractions): Expletus est die uicesimo quarto. V. mensis lunaris anni Arabum quingentesimi. XXVIIII. existente,. . die mensis Martii era. M.C.LXXIII.

This passage is discussed in AJPb 97 (1976), 252, by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, who rightly draws attention to the ‘absurdity’’ of exilii specie sepositos and observes that ‘Ausonius must be saying that the brothers were banished in fact, though not in name’’. Shackleton Bailey's solution is to replace exilii with bospitii, which gives excellent sense, but, even on the assumption of psychological error by a scribe, which is how Shackleton Bailey explains the corruption, may seem rather hard to credit. An easier solution might be to write auxilii for exilii: in appearance Constantine's brothers were being helped and protected, in reality confined in exile.